Letters to the Editor

Legacies strengthen Princeton community

Regarding "Admissions should be blind to legacy status" (Friday, March 4):

The author of the recent editorial who wishes that Princeton admissions be blind to legacy preferences is living in a world of youthful idealism. I am a Princeton parent, and my son was admitted on his own merits. He has no relatives who have attended Princeton. But I attended two other universities that vie with Princeton for students, and my wife attended a third.

The family ties that create the intense loyalty that Princeton enjoys would be dissipated by the policy that the writer proposes. I have donated 10 times as much money to my alma mater which values legacies as to my alma mater which does not. I did this in the hope that my son might choose to apply there. If a parent attends one university, but each of his or her children attend a different university, the sort of loyalty that leads to large donations is dispersed. This would have an adverse effect on those deserving students who would benefit from the meritocracy the writer favors, as money from alumni available for financial aid would be less, and large donations for capital campaigns would over time go instead to the competing institutions who continued to build family brand loyalty by admitting the qualified sons and daughters of alumni/ae.

As a Princeton parent, I have found it remarkable that 61 percent of Princeton alumni are donors to the university, far more than the 49 percent for second place and astonishingly more than the typical 20 to 30 percent alumni giving rate. Legacy preferences, despite being the focus of a good deal of politically correct opposition these days, are one of the most important tools Princeton has in building the loyalty and lifelong enthusiastic support it enjoys. Those of you who know only Princeton cannot appreciate how superior this loyalty factor is at Princeton compared to its peers. It is one of the most special things about Princeton. Don't kill the golden goose by doing away with legacy preferences. Ira Davidoff P'05

Legacy admissions just another form of affirmative action

Regarding "Admissions should be blind to legacy status" (Friday, March 4):

Mr. LaFemina criticizes legacy preferences, and seems to think that the only grounds for keeping them are based on Princeton's financial interest. Though this is certainly part of it, I believe there are other strong reasons for favoring legacies, such as the fact that they promote a sense of continuity and tradition within the University community. Though I myself am a legacy, I would nevertheless welcome an end to legacy preferences if this happened in conjunction with an end to unfair racial preferences and other forms of affirmative action. If the desire to end recognition of legacies is based on a genuine wish for complete fairness in admissions, then I applaud the effort. However, I suspect that legacy favoritism is the only form of unfair preference that liberals are not in love with, and that they fail to see the inherent injustice in other affirmative action policies. Margaret Zagroba '07

Sexuality not just about genetics

Regarding "Larry Summers: Harvard's heretic at the stake" (Thursday, March 3):

It is ironic that John Andrews argues that President Tilghman has misrepresented Larry Summers' question about women and science when Andrews does an excellent job of misrepresenting arguments in the course of his column. While at first I was amazed that Andrews had succeeded in solving the age old nature versus nurture question in relation to human sexuality, I then realized that no liberal or gay person I know has ever argued that sexuality is solely "genetically determined" as a way to promote the "normalization of deviant behavior." Perhaps Andrews is confusing this with the commonly heard argument that sexuality is not a choice. Whether one's sexuality is determined by nature or nurture is irrelevant to the fact that most people feel that their sexuality is not going to change. This argument is not one of genetic determinism, but of people's real life experiences.

Although Andrews argues that the ideology of liberalism has gotten in the way of truthful academic debate, his writing only demonstrates the degree to which his own personal ideology — in which same-sex love is considered to be "deviant behavior" — has blurred his own understanding of the debate surrounding sexuality. Jessie Weber '05